HARBHAJAN SINGH BAJWA Vs. JASDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harbhajan Singh Bajwa-petitioner/plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition against Jasdev Singh-respondent/defendant No. 1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer for setting aside the impugned joint order dated 3.10.2011 (Annexure-P. 1) passed in Civil Suit No. 3/27-1-2009/6.1.2010 titled as "Harbhajan Singh Bajwa v. Jasdev Singh and others" by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) being void ab initio with a direction to the said Court to take final decision on the application filed under Order 7 Rule 6 C.P.C. and the order dated 3.10.2011 passed in another application dated 29.9.2011 filed under Order 8 Rules 1, 9 and 10 C.P.C. Notice of motion in this case was issued. Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent and contested this civil revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

(3.) At the time of arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner firstly argued that the petitioner/plaintiff was not present when this order was passed, therefore, the matter be remanded back to the trial Court for deciding the application after giving hearing to the parties. He stated that the earlier order shows that on 3.10.2011 the case was adjourned to 4.10.2011, but later on the impugned order was passed on the same day. Similarly, in the order, it is written that opportunity was given for replication, but the issues were framed on the same day. Learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner further argued that the application under Order 7 Rule 6 C.P.C. was not decided on merit and was kept pending with the observation that it shall be decided after concluding evidence by both the parties with regard to the said facts. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further argued that the written statement has not been filed within the prescribed period of 30 days, which can be extended upto 90 days. It was filed much later after the filing of the application under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. by the present petitioner-plaintiff. No written request was made and no reasonable ground has been given in the application, therefore, this order should be set aside and defence of the defendant be struck off.